...or so many on the Left have been saying after the Stupak-Pitts amendment passed a week ago, thanks in part to what they saw as inappropriate activism on the part of the Catholic bishops. Geoffrey Stone at the Huffington Post longs for a simpler time:

Whatever happened to the America John F. Kennedy believed in? The America in which "no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials"?

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."- John Adams, Oct. 11, 1798

I understand that the Arabs will eventually be the majority population in Israel due to higher birth rates.

Not just Israel, my friend. In the Middle East, Muslims may have multiple wives and they don't practice birth control. They just continue to reproduce. And here is the plan.

The following is a description (slightly modified) from Dr. Peter Hammond's book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat. www.frontline.org.za/books_videos/sti.htm

As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness.

At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs [Europe, Australia, USA and Japan]. Six percent of US prison inmates are Muslim. Like any other minority, they wont integrate, but work to build their own separate community.

From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. South Africa's Muslim population is 2%, but they control 35% of the businesses, a large percentage of the banks and have five Cabinet seats while Christians (77% of the population) have none.

They will push for the introduction of halaal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves (along with threats for failure to comply).

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia; Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world, but to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. (Ei: car-burnings in France last October.) Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats.

From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya (infidel tax). (Sudan, Kosovo, Lebanon and Egypt).

After 80% expect State run ethnic cleansing and genocide [Western Papua (New Guinea), Iran, Biafra, Turkey and North Nigeria].

100% will usher in the peace of "Dar-es-Salaam" - House of Peace - as in Saudi Arabia, Libya and Yemen.

7
posted on 11/16/2009 3:42:17 PM PST
by NYer
( "One Who Prays Is Not Afraid; One Who Prays Is Never Alone"- Benedict XVI)

The bishops know the Stupak amendment still allows for some abortion scenarios. (rape, incest, etc.) But that’s not why they were lobbying for it. They lobbied for it because:

a) it was better than no amendment at all, should the bill pass (lesser of two evils), and

b) in the best case scenario, it creates a massive obstacle to getting a liberal healthcare bill passed at all, and thus, no federal funding whatsoever for abortions.

Once you have impassioned, socially conservative democrats who proclaim their opposition to federal funding of abortions, they’re locked in unless they want to lose face and flip-flop. So, now the Stupak amendment has created a situation where, if it stays in, libs will vote against the bill, and if it comes out, socially conservative democrats will vote against. With just a couple votes margin, this bill is going to be DOA if it passes the Senate, comes out of the committe (with or without Stupak) and goes back to the House.

The Church believes that:

a) Universal healthcare is a worthy goal, just like feeding the hungry. But not at any cost.

b) Universal healthcare that subsidizes abortion (and other immoral procedures) is not healthcare at all and must be stridently rejected.

c) Any comprehensive healthcare bill that does include abortion coverage MUST have an ironclad conscience opt-out clause.

So, the bishops are faced with an interesting game of chess. They have to work against the bill, and at the same time provide a way to hedge against the worst case scenario (full federal funding of abortions, no conscience clause) should their efforts to defeat the bill altogether fail.

Not all Jewish groups are pro-abortion, the ones that are think the Torah has no restrictions on abortion. The misguided belief of Adam breathing through his nostrils thus the beginning of "life"/Spiritual life "justifies" this belief. Problem is, in the story, Adam did not have a mother and the last biology class I took taught me that the same O2 that ran through the nostrils, does the same through the umbilical cord (i.e. human life needs O2 to live).

If one wants to play roulette with God using word games and not context/proper analysis, be prepared to pay the price for the short-sidedness.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.